Democrat nominees

[AYFR]

I will post a Rep one also so lets just keep this focused.

What have the top candidates running for the Democrat nomination done to qualify them for the Office of President?

Business they have owned, cities or states they have run?

What qualifies them.


Before this starts the reply what made Bush qualified is not the topic here.

[The Q]

I'm going to make both of these threads "stickies".

ADQ

[issac the dragon]

Stick to the topic?

[April15]

Hillary has already been 8 years in the white house. Who can beat that?

[issac the dragon]

:rofl You are right about that. And everyone knows she was INVOLVED. More power to her.

[issac the dragon]

Just for the record, I would have nothing but contempt for any woman who sat in the WH and never expressed an opinion to her husband. That was one of the things that the Republicans bragged about Bush when he ran in 99. Laura would mind her own business. This country is women's business. And if it is true that Laura never says a word, she is contemptable. But I don't believe she does. I truly think that woman eats men's balls for breakfast.

[Trueblue]

Hillary has been in positions of responsibility for decades, she's well qualified. Anyone who doubts it can look up her background on wikipedia.

I suspect that this question is really about her, so I'll leave it at that.

[toxic]

I'd like someone with these qualifications and experience over their career to be our Commander-In-Chief.

Retired General Wesley Clark:
- Retire 4 Star General.
- Valedictorian (1st in class) at West Point.
- Rhodes Scholar, with advanced degrees in Philosophy, Politics and Economics.
- Military Science Degree (Masters) from Command and General Staff College.
- Assigned Company Commander (Captain) in Vietnam.
- Rallied his company in a successful counterattack after being shot 4 times by enemy fire. Evac'd for wounds to his right shoulder, right hand, right hip, and right leg. Received Silver Star (with Valor).
- Led several military world Regional Commands, (e.g., Southern Command, European Command, and CENTCOMM also I think.
- Past Supreme Allied commander of NATO.
- Director, Strategic Plans and Policy, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
- General Alexander Haig, and others named Clark the "most brilliant and gifted officer [they had] ever known." Or “Army's best and brightest”.
- Was sent to Bosnia by Sec of Defense Perry to serve as military advisor to the diplomatic negotiating team with Sec of State Holbrooke.
- When Sec of State Holbrooke, Deputy Sec of Defense Frasure, General Clark and others had an accident while taking sniper fire, Gen Clark rappelled down a cliff to recover two Americans who were killed.
- After this event President Clinton and Army Chief of Staff General Shalikashvili promoted Gen Clark from USSOUTHCOM to US European Command
- He led military Operation Allied Force for UN Resolution 1199, and implemented Peace Accords at Kosovo
- President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright accepted Gen Clark’s strategic planning directly, rather than via Pentagon filtering.
- Advised Congress against Iraq invasion and detailed the potential problems that are now history.
- He is pro-choice, pro-healthcare, pro-education, etc.

[AYFR]

I suspect that this question is really about her, so I'll leave it at that.

You would be wrong then.

[Trueblue]

You would be wrong then.

I've heard this repeatedly, about Hillary, from the right. She never has met a payroll :blah. That may not be your goal, but they don't say this about any other candidate.

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/giuliani_lost_in_texas.html

[AYFR]

Maybe THEY don't but I posted this for each side to have a chance to prove why their candidate should win and is qualified for the White House.

[Saguaro]

Obama was sworn in as a Senator on January 4, 2005.[50] In a move considered exceptional for a first-term incoming senator, he recruited Pete Rouse, a 30-year veteran of the Washington political scene and former chief of staff to Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, as his chief of staff.[51] Karen Kornbluh, an economist who was deputy chief of staff to former Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, was hired as Obama's policy adviser.[52] Foreign policy advisers include Samantha Power, author on human rights and genocide, and former Clinton administration officials Anthony Lake and Susan Rice.[53] Obama holds assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans' Affairs,[54] and is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.[55]


109th Congress
Obama sponsored 152 bills and resolutions brought before the 109th Congress in 2005 and 2006, and cosponsored another 427.[56][57] He took an active role in the Senate's drive for improved border security and immigration reform. Beginning in 2005, Obama co-sponsored the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).[58] He later added three amendments to S. 2611, the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act," sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA).[59][60] S. 2611 passed the Senate in May 2006, but failed to gain majority support in the U.S. House of Representatives.[61] In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act, authorizing construction of fencing and other security improvements along the United States–Mexico border.[62] President Bush signed the Secure Fence Act into law in October 2006, calling it "an important step toward immigration reform."[63]


Senate bill sponsors Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Obama join President Bush at the signing ceremony for the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act of 2006.[64]Partnering first with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), and then with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Obama successfully introduced two initiatives bearing his name. "Lugar-Obama" expands the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines.[65][66] The "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" provides for a web site, managed by the Office of Management and Budget, listing all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward, and providing breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract.[67][68] In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act," marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor.[69]

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In August 2005, he traveled to Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan. The trip focused on strategies to control the world's supply of conventional weapons, biological weapons, and weapons of mass destruction as a first defense against potential terrorist attacks.[70] Following meetings with U.S. military in Kuwait and Iraq in January 2006, Obama visited Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian territories. At a meeting with Palestinian students two weeks before Hamas won the legislative election, Obama warned that "the U.S. will never recognize winning Hamas candidates unless the group renounces its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel."[71] He left for his third official trip in August 2006, traveling to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad. In a nationally televised speech at the University of Nairobi, he spoke forcefully on the influence of ethnic rivalries and corruption in Kenya.[72] The speech touched off a public debate among rival leaders, some formally challenging Obama's remarks as unfair and improper, others defending his positions.[73][74]


110th Congress
On the first day of the newly Democratic-controlled 110th Congress, in a column published in the Washington Post, Obama called for an end to "any and all practices that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a public servant has become indebted to a lobbyist."[75] He joined with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) in strengthening restrictions on travel in corporate jets to S.1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, which passed the Senate with a 96-2 majority.[76][77] Obama joined Charles Schumer (D-NY) in sponsoring S. 453, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections, including fraudulent flyers and automated phone calls, as witnessed in the 2006 midterm elections.[78][79] Obama's energy initiatives scored pluses and minuses with environmentalists, who welcomed his sponsorship with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) of a climate change bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds by 2050, but were skeptical of Obama's support for a bill promoting liquefied coal production.[80][81] Also during the first month of the 110th Congress, Obama introduced the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act," a bill proposing to cap troop levels in Iraq, begin phased redeployment, and remove all combat brigades from Iraq before April 2008.[82][83]

Later in 2007, Obama sponsored with Kit Bond (R-MO) an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Act adding safeguards for personality disorder military discharges, and calling for a review by the Government Accounting Office following reports that the procedure had been used inappropriately to reduce government costs.[84] He sponsored the "Iran Sanctions Enabling Act" supporting divestment of state pension funds from Iran's oil and gas industry,[85] and joined Chuck Hagel (R-NE) in introducing legislation to prevent nuclear terrorism.[86] He also sponsored a Senate amendment to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide one year of job protection for family members caring for soldiers with combat-related injuries.[87] After passing both houses of Congress with bipartisan majorities, SCHIP was vetoed by President Bush in early October 2007, a move Obama declared "shows a callousness of priorities that is offensive to the ideals we hold as Americans."[88]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

[Saguaro]

Before running for political office, John Edwards was a personal injury trial attorney, specializing in representing people who were alleged victims of corporate negligence and/or medical malpractice.

After law school, he clerked for a Federal judge and in 1978 became an associate at the Nashville law firm of Dearborn & Ewing, doing primarily trial work, defending a Nashville bank and other corporate clients. The Edwards family returned to North Carolina in 1981, settling in the capital of Raleigh where he joined the firm of Tharrington, Smith & Hargrove.[13]

Edwards' first notable case was a 1984 medical malpractice lawsuit. As a young associate, he got the assignment because it was considered a losing case; the firm had only accepted it as a favor to an attorney and state senator who did not want to keep it. Nevertheless, Edwards won a $3.7 million verdict on behalf of his client, who suffered permanent brain and nerve damage after a doctor prescribed a drug overdose of anti-alcoholism drug Antabuse during alcohol aversion therapy.[14] In other cases, Edwards sued the American Red Cross three times, alleging transmission of AIDS through tainted blood products, resulting in a confidential settlement each time, and defended a North Carolina newspaper against a libel charge.[13]

In 1985, Edwards tried a case involving medical malpractice during childbirth, representing a five-year-old child born with cerebral palsy whose doctor did not choose to perform an immediate Caesarian delivery when a fetal monitor showed she was in distress. Edwards won a $6.5 million verdict for his client, but five weeks later, the presiding judge sustained the verdict but overturned the award on grounds that it was "excessive" and that it appeared "to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice," adding that in his opinion "the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict." He offered the plaintiffs half of the jury's award, but the child's family appealed the case and settled for $4.25 million.[13] Winning this case established the North Carolina precedent of physician and hospital liability for failing to determine if the patient understood risks of a particular procedure.[14]

After this trial, Edwards gained national attention as a plaintiff's lawyer. He filed at least 20 similar lawsuits in the years following and achieved verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million for his clients. His fee, as is customary in "contingency" cases, was one-third of the settlement plus expenses. These successful lawsuits were followed by similar ones across the country. When asked about an increase in Caesarean deliveries nationwide, perhaps to avoid similar medical malpractice lawsuits, Edwards said, "The question is, would you rather have cases where that happens instead of having cases where you don't intervene and a child either becomes disabled for life or dies in utero?"[13]

In 1993, Edwards began his own firm in Raleigh (now known as Kirby & Holt) with a friend, David Kirby. He became known as the top plaintiffs' attorney in North Carolina.[13] The biggest case of his legal career was a 1997 product liability lawsuit against Sta-Rite, the manufacturer of a defective pool drain cover. The case involved a three-year-old girl[15] who was disemboweled by the suction power of the pool drain pump when she sat on an open pool drain whose protective cover other children at the pool had removed, after the swim club had failed to install the cover properly. Despite 12 prior suits with similar claims, Sta-Rite continued to make and sell drain covers lacking warnings. Sta-Rite protested that an additional warning would have made no difference because the pool owners already knew the importance of keeping the cover secured.

In his closing arguments, Edwards spoke to the jury for an hour and a half without referring to notes. It was an emotional appeal that made reference to his son, Wade, who had been killed shortly before testimony began in the trial. Mark Dayton, editor of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, would later call it "the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen."[16] The jury awarded the family $25 million, the largest personal injury award in North Carolina history. The company settled for the $25 million while the jury was deliberating additional punitive damages, rather than risk losing an appeal. For their part in this case, Edwards and law partner David Kirby earned the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's national award for public service.[14] The family said that they hired Edwards over other attorneys because he alone had offered to accept a smaller percentage as fee unless the award was unexpectedly high, while all of the other lawyers they spoke with said they required the full one-third fee. The size of the jury award was unprecedented, and Edwards did receive the standard one-third plus expenses fee typical of contingency cases. The family was so impressed with his intelligence and commitment[13] that they volunteered for his Senate campaign the next year.

After Edwards won a large verdict against a trucking company whose worker had been involved in a fatal accident, the North Carolina legislature passed a law prohibiting such awards unless the employee's actions had been specifically sanctioned by the company.[13]

In December 2003, during his first presidential campaign, Edwards (with John Auchard) published Four Trials, a biographical book focusing on cases from his legal career.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards

[Saguaro]

Biden is a long-time member of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which he chaired from 1987 until 1995 and served as ranking minority member from 1981 until 1987 and again from 1995 until 1997. In this capacity, he dealt with issues related to drug policy, crime prevention, and civil liberties. While chairman, Biden presided over two of the more contentious U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings: Robert Bork in 1987 and Clarence Thomas in 1991.[9]

Biden has been involved in crafting many federal crime laws over the last decade, including the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, also known as the Biden Crime Law. He also authored the landmark Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which contains a broad array of measures to combat domestic violence and provides billions of dollars in federal funds to address gender-based crimes. Although part of this legislation later was struck down as unconstitutional, it was reauthorized in 2000 and 2005. In March 2004, Biden enlisted major American technology companies in diagnosing the problems of the Austin, Texas-based National Domestic Violence Hotline, and to donate equipment and expertise to it.[10][11][12]

As chairman of the International Narcotics Control Caucus, Biden wrote the laws that created the nation's "Drug Czar," who oversees and coordinates national drug control policy. In April 2003 he introduced the controversial Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act, also known as the RAVE Act. He continues to work to stop the spread of "date rape drugs" such as Rohypnol, and drugs such as Ecstasy and Ketamine. In 2004 he worked to pass a bill outlawing steroids like androstenedione, the drug used by many baseball players.[13]

Biden's legislation to promote college aid and loan programs allows families to deduct on their annual income tax returns up to $10,000 per year in higher education expenses. His "Kids 2000" legislation established a public/private partnership to provide computer centers, teachers, Internet access, and technical training to young people, particularly to low-income and at-risk youth.[14]

Throughout his career Biden has vehemently opposed tort reform, while continuously joining Senate Republicans to support stricter bankruptcy laws.[15]


[edit] Foreign Relations Committee
Biden is also long-time member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. In 1997, he became the ranking minority member and chaired the committee from June 2001 through 2003. His efforts to combat hostilities in the Balkans in the 1990s brought national attention and influenced presidential policy: traveling repeatedly to the region, he made one meeting famous by calling Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic a "war criminal." He consistently argued for lifting the arms embargo, training Bosnian Muslims, investigating war crimes and administering NATO air strikes. Biden's subsequent "lift and strike" resolution was instrumental in convincing President Bill Clinton to use military force in the face of systematic human rights violations.[citation needed] Biden has also called on Libya to release political prisoner Fathi Eljahmi.[16]

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Biden was supportive of the Bush administration's efforts, calling for additional ground troops in Afghanistan and agreeing with the administration's assertion that Saddam Hussein needed to be eliminated. The Bush administration rejected an effort Biden undertook with Senator Richard Lugar to pass a resolution authorizing military action only after the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts. In October 2002, Biden voted for the final resolution to support the war in Iraq. He has long supported the Bush administration's war effort and appropriations to pay for it, but has argued repeatedly that more soldiers are needed, the war should be internationalized, and the Bush administration should "level with the American people" about the cost and length of the conflict.[17]


[edit] The Biden-Gelb Plan for Iraq
In November 2006, Biden and Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, released a comprehensive strategy to end sectarian violence in Iraq. Rather than continuing the present approach or withdrawing, the plan calls for "a third way": federalizing Iraq and giving Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis "breathing room" in their own regions. [18] The key points include:

1. Giving Iraq's major groups a measure of autonomy in their own regions. A central government would be left in charge of interests such as defending the borders and distributing oil revenues.
2. Guaranteeing Sunnis — who have no oil rights — a proportionate share of oil revenue and reintegrating those who have not fought against Coalition forces.
3. Increase, not end, reconstruction assistance but insist that Arab Gulf states fund it and tie it to the creation of a jobs program and to the protection of minority rights.
4. Initiate a diplomatic offensive to enlist the support of the major powers and neighboring countries for a political settlement in Iraq and create an Oversight Contact Group to enforce regional commitments.
5. Begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces in 2007 and withdraw most of them by 2008, leaving a small follow-on force for security and policing actions.
The plan named as The Biden-Brownback Resolution passed in a bi-partisan fashion on the Senate floor 75-23 on September 25th, 2007. It garnered 26 Republican votes, proving Biden has experience working across the aisle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden

[April15]

I'd like someone with these qualifications and experience over their career to be our Commander-In-Chief.

Retired General Wesley Clark:
- Retire 4 Star General.
- Valedictorian (1st in class) at West Point.
- Rhodes Scholar, with advanced degrees in Philosophy, Politics and Economics.
- Military Science Degree (Masters) from Command and General Staff College.
- Assigned Company Commander (Captain) in Vietnam.
- Rallied his company in a successful counterattack after being shot 4 times by enemy fire. Evac'd for wounds to his right shoulder, right hand, right hip, and right leg. Received Silver Star (with Valor).
- Led several military world Regional Commands, (e.g., Southern Command, European Command, and CENTCOMM also I think.
- Past Supreme Allied commander of NATO.
- Director, Strategic Plans and Policy, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
- General Alexander Haig, and others named Clark the "most brilliant and gifted officer [they had] ever known." Or “Army's best and brightest”.
- Was sent to Bosnia by Sec of Defense Perry to serve as military advisor to the diplomatic negotiating team with Sec of State Holbrooke.
- When Sec of State Holbrooke, Deputy Sec of Defense Frasure, General Clark and others had an accident while taking sniper fire, Gen Clark rappelled down a cliff to recover two Americans who were killed.
- After this event President Clinton and Army Chief of Staff General Shalikashvili promoted Gen Clark from USSOUTHCOM to US European Command
- He led military Operation Allied Force for UN Resolution 1199, and implemented Peace Accords at Kosovo
- President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright accepted Gen Clark’s strategic planning directly, rather than via Pentagon filtering.
- Advised Congress against Iraq invasion and detailed the potential problems that are now history.
- He is pro-choice, pro-healthcare, pro-education, etc.

people like him don't need to be validated so it is unlikely he would even accept a nomination.

[toxic]

people like him don't need to be validated so it is unlikely he would even accept a nomination.

He ran in the Democratic Primary in 2004 and got smeared by all sides.

[April15]

He ran in the Democratic Primary in 2004 and got smeared by all sides.Was unfortunate that a man we needed was tossed aside like so much horseshit. And we wound up with a horse faced shit that lost!

[Matt]

Wesley Clark got my vote in the primary in the last election.
I hope he will play an important role in the next administration.

Since I have already shown an affinity for picking losers, I support Biden in this election.
I think the bio here shows clearly that he not only has the experience needed in domestic and foreign affairs but he is able to communicate across political lines.
My biggest fear in the next administration is not terror from Muslim countries but the divide that is being fostered in this country.
If we do not return to "one nation, undivided" our destruction will be from within. The divisive attitude has been in full swing since 1994.

This country has shown in the past that we can conquer all problems if we pull together. That is the major skill that our next leader must possess.

[Wabash]

Wesley Clark got my vote in the primary in the last election.
I hope he will play an important role in the next administration.

Since I have already shown an affinity for picking losers, I support Biden in this election.
I think the bio here shows clearly that he not only has the experience needed in domestic and foreign affairs but he is able to communicate across political lines.
My biggest fear in the next administration is not terror from Muslim countries but the divide that is being fostered in this country.
If we do not return to "one nation, undivided" our destruction will be from within. The divisive attitude has been in full swing since 1994.

This country has shown in the past that we can conquer all problems if we pull together. That is the major skill that our next leader must possess.

Wesley Clark???????? Holy Shit!:shame:shame

Well all Hillary can do is Polarize....and Obama Rama will be the little liberal shit that he is...Edwards doesn't stand a chance...that leaves a Republican...who will it be?

[Wabash]

Was unfortunate that a man we needed was tossed aside like so much horseshit. And we wound up with a horse faced shit that lost!

The guy was so much horseshit and still is....so was the guy before him!

[Trueblue]

Wesley Clark???????? Holy Shit!:shame:shame

Well all Hillary can do is Polarize....and Obama Rama will be the little liberal shit that he is...Edwards doesn't stand a chance...that leaves a Republican...who will it be?

Way to be neutral! :lol

[Matt]

If I understand correctly there is a thread for you to discuss your Republican choice, Wabash. This is not the bash Hillary thread.

You need more substance in your negative statements about the Democractic candidates.
Without qualifying information it's just another fear and smear campaign by Republicans. Haven't you heard? The bullshit got too deep to fly that one anymore.

My choices are any of the above in this thread.
All of them have some good ideas for moving America forward.


I'm talking with God about speaking more clearly when he contacts Rev. Pat.
His ears are getting bigger but perhaps his comprehension is decreasing.
I just can't believe God is a flipflopper or politically partisan!
:devil

[Wabash]

Way to be neutral! :lol

My bad......

If I understand correctly there is a thread for you to discuss your Republican choice, Wabash. This is not the bash Hillary thread.

You need more substance in your negative statements about the Democractic candidates.
Without qualifying information it's just another fear and smear campaign by Republicans. Haven't you heard? The bullshit got too deep to fly that one anymore.

My choices are any of the above in this thread.
All of them have some good ideas for moving America forward.


I'm talking with God about speaking more clearly when he contacts Rev. Pat.
His ears are getting bigger but perhaps his comprehension is decreasing.
I just can't believe God is a flipflopper or politically partisan!
:devil

My bad II...he, he, he....
I pay no attention to that goofball Robertson...or any Evangelical...they are all phonies to me...if they would do it for free, I might believe em! They are selling God and selling bullshit as well!

Qualifying info on the Demos? Haaaaaaaaaaaaa! Too funny! There is so much out there that is negative, I can't keep up with all of it....I do the best that I can, but anymore...it goes w/o saying......so I didn't!!

[Matt]

Your best is pathetic so for as info goes.
You only present slanderous statements with no credible references.

You may not listen to Pat or Rush but you buy into their truths.
Neither qualifies as a news program ~ just entertainment ~ sort of like this board. :wink

[AYFR]

Wesley Clark???????? Holy Shit!:shame:shame

Well all Hillary can do is Polarize....and Obama Rama will be the little liberal shit that he is...Edwards doesn't stand a chance...that leaves a Republican...who will it be?

The guy was so much horseshit and still is....so was the guy before him!

My bad......



My bad II...he, he, he....
I pay no attention to that goofball Robertson...or any Evangelical...they are all phonies to me...if they would do it for free, I might believe em! They are selling God and selling bullshit as well!

Qualifying info on the Demos? Haaaaaaaaaaaaa! Too funny! There is so much out there that is negative, I can't keep up with all of it....I do the best that I can, but anymore...it goes w/o saying......so I didn't!!
Please stick to the topic or DO NOT POST HERE.

This thread is what Matt says it is for. To post why you think qualifies the DEM candidates to be president.

Why don't you go to the REP one of these and post what you think qualifies your candidate to be president.

Sorry to any Mods or Admins if I am out of line here.

[issac the dragon]

I appreciate you for trying Reverand. Some people think they are allowed to do what ever they want.

I don't have a favorite amoung the Democrats unless it is Bill Richardson. He does have experience. And I think it is time to stop the relentless line of white males running this country. I dared to say that. I think Richardson would make a good president as long as the people of this country can beat it through the Democrats heads that we want border security and enforcement of the law. Then we will talk about immigration. Legally.

[AYFR]

Your welcome Issac

[Saguaro]

Please stick to the topic or DO NOT POST HERE.

This thread is what Matt says it is for. To post why you think qualifies the DEM candidates to be president.

Why don't you go to the REP one of these and post what you think qualifies your candidate to be president.

Sorry to any Mods or Admins if I am out of line here.

:slap :D

[AYFR]

Please stick to the topic or DO NOT POST HERE.

This thread is what Matt says it is for. To post why you think qualifies the DEM candidates to be president.

Why don't you go to the REP one of these and post what you think qualifies your candidate to be president.

Sorry to any Mods or Admins if I am out of line here.

:slap :D

Hey I did say sorry :D
:wink

[issac the dragon]

I hereby swear I will not post on the Republicans thread anymore. I'm as bad as Wabash. Ow. That hurt.

[quiet man]

where does one get experience for the presidency? most of the candidates have both good and bad things in their closets. the most important thing is how the people see each one.

[AYFR]

where does one get experience for the presidency? most of the candidates have both good and bad things in their closets. the most important thing is how the people see each one.

Each ones views is different, that is the reason for these threads.

[issac the dragon]

INHO, the most important thing a president needs to do is remember that he/she was elected for many reasons. Not because the people who voted for him (using the universal he, him,man) agree with them on everything, but because he was the lesser of two evils. That the election was not a mandate to make this country over in his image. A little humility would go a long way. We elect men to be president, not god.

[Saguaro]

The corporations and the electoral college determine who becomes President, the averge person has nothing to do with it anymore :sad

[issac the dragon]

I don't think even the corporations want some fool egotist thinking his every wish is what has to be. The corporations in this country aren't much happier with Bush than anyone else. That's why they keep giving so much money to the Democrats.

[AYFR]

:bump

[Matt]

Biden is a long-time member of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which he chaired from 1987 until 1995 and served as ranking minority member from 1981 until 1987 and again from 1995 until 1997. In this capacity, he dealt with issues related to drug policy, crime prevention, and civil liberties. While chairman, Biden presided over two of the more contentious U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings: Robert Bork in 1987 and Clarence Thomas in 1991.[9]

Biden has been involved in crafting many federal crime laws over the last decade, including the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, also known as the Biden Crime Law. He also authored the landmark Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which contains a broad array of measures to combat domestic violence and provides billions of dollars in federal funds to address gender-based crimes. Although part of this legislation later was struck down as unconstitutional, it was reauthorized in 2000 and 2005. In March 2004, Biden enlisted major American technology companies in diagnosing the problems of the Austin, Texas-based National Domestic Violence Hotline, and to donate equipment and expertise to it.[10][11][12]

As chairman of the International Narcotics Control Caucus, Biden wrote the laws that created the nation's "Drug Czar," who oversees and coordinates national drug control policy. In April 2003 he introduced the controversial Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act, also known as the RAVE Act. He continues to work to stop the spread of "date rape drugs" such as Rohypnol, and drugs such as Ecstasy and Ketamine. In 2004 he worked to pass a bill outlawing steroids like androstenedione, the drug used by many baseball players.[13]

Biden's legislation to promote college aid and loan programs allows families to deduct on their annual income tax returns up to $10,000 per year in higher education expenses. His "Kids 2000" legislation established a public/private partnership to provide computer centers, teachers, Internet access, and technical training to young people, particularly to low-income and at-risk youth.[14]

Throughout his career Biden has vehemently opposed tort reform, while continuously joining Senate Republicans to support stricter bankruptcy laws.[15]


[edit] Foreign Relations Committee
Biden is also long-time member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. In 1997, he became the ranking minority member and chaired the committee from June 2001 through 2003. His efforts to combat hostilities in the Balkans in the 1990s brought national attention and influenced presidential policy: traveling repeatedly to the region, he made one meeting famous by calling Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic a "war criminal." He consistently argued for lifting the arms embargo, training Bosnian Muslims, investigating war crimes and administering NATO air strikes. Biden's subsequent "lift and strike" resolution was instrumental in convincing President Bill Clinton to use military force in the face of systematic human rights violations.[citation needed] Biden has also called on Libya to release political prisoner Fathi Eljahmi.[16]

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Biden was supportive of the Bush administration's efforts, calling for additional ground troops in Afghanistan and agreeing with the administration's assertion that Saddam Hussein needed to be eliminated. The Bush administration rejected an effort Biden undertook with Senator Richard Lugar to pass a resolution authorizing military action only after the exhaustion of diplomatic efforts. In October 2002, Biden voted for the final resolution to support the war in Iraq. He has long supported the Bush administration's war effort and appropriations to pay for it, but has argued repeatedly that more soldiers are needed, the war should be internationalized, and the Bush administration should "level with the American people" about the cost and length of the conflict.[17]


[edit] The Biden-Gelb Plan for Iraq
In November 2006, Biden and Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, released a comprehensive strategy to end sectarian violence in Iraq. Rather than continuing the present approach or withdrawing, the plan calls for "a third way": federalizing Iraq and giving Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis "breathing room" in their own regions. [18] The key points include:

1. Giving Iraq's major groups a measure of autonomy in their own regions. A central government would be left in charge of interests such as defending the borders and distributing oil revenues.
2. Guaranteeing Sunnis — who have no oil rights — a proportionate share of oil revenue and reintegrating those who have not fought against Coalition forces.
3. Increase, not end, reconstruction assistance but insist that Arab Gulf states fund it and tie it to the creation of a jobs program and to the protection of minority rights.
4. Initiate a diplomatic offensive to enlist the support of the major powers and neighboring countries for a political settlement in Iraq and create an Oversight Contact Group to enforce regional commitments.
5. Begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces in 2007 and withdraw most of them by 2008, leaving a small follow-on force for security and policing actions.
The plan named as The Biden-Brownback Resolution passed in a bi-partisan fashion on the Senate floor 75-23 on September 25th, 2007. It garnered 26 Republican votes, proving Biden has experience working across the aisle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden


Did y'all see how well my candidate did in the debates on CNN Thursday night ?

[Trueblue]

I'm torn between Edwards and Richardson, myself. I have no idea who my DH will vote for. Except it won't be a Republican. :wink

[Matt]

The corporations and the electoral college determine who becomes President, the averge person has nothing to do with it anymore :sad

The electoral college may have been needed once ~ but not anymore.
I think every vote should count the same in the presidential elections.
It is rediculous how the candidates court the states with lots of electoral votes.
Some of the smaller states decided some years ago to get into the act and have been having their early caucuses. This has given them too much influence on who our candidate is.

What would be the problem with having a specific day for the primaries just like we do in the general election?!?
And save the country some money by throwing out the electoral college.
Just verify those votes by number and the woman/man who gets the most votes wins ~ just like in the Congressional races.

[issac the dragon]

As to Edwards plan to 'federalize Iraq,' how does that differ from what we have in Iraq right now? The Kurds are making private oil deals. And the Iraqi government is objecting because that violates the federal government.

In polls taken of the people in this country, they do not want to get rid of the Electoral College. I don't agree with them, but I do think the Constiturtion should be changed rarely.

[Matt]

The Electoral College: How It Works

(From The New Book of Knowledge - NBK News)

When voters cast their ballots in a U.S. presidential election, they aren't electing the president directly. The names of the presidential candidate are on the ballot. But the votes go to choose electors--members of the Electoral College--who are pledged to those candidates. It's the Electoral College that actually picks the president and vice president.

The founders of the United States set up the Electoral College for several reasons. In their day, with no radio or television, it was hard for people to learn about candidates outside their own states. The founders thought that voters should choose electors who would learn about the candidates and make the decision for them.

The Electoral College was also set up to protect the interests of small states. Every state gets one electoral vote for each of its U.S. senators and one vote for each of its U.S. representatives. The number of a state's representatives is based on its population. But the number of senators is not--all states have two. Thus small states have a slightly bigger voice in the Electoral College than they do in the popular vote. No state has less than three electoral votes. (The District of Columbia also has three electoral votes.)

The electors vote weeks after the election, in December. They meet in their state capitals and cast votes for president and vice president. To win, a candidate must get 270 electoral votes, out of the total of 538. If no candidate gets a majority, the House of Representatives picks the president, and the Senate picks the vice president.

These days the Electoral College doesn't work quite the way the founders thought it would. Electors are no longer supposed to make up their own minds when they cast their ballots. They are supposed to follow the wishes of the people who voted for them. It's rare for a "faithless elector" to break ranks and switch his or her vote. That last happened in 1988, when a West Virginia elector voted for Lloyd Bentsen as president and Michael Dukakis as vice president. (In 2004, a Minnesota elector voted for John Edwards as president instead of John Kerry, but in a subsequent vote, all 10 of the state's votes for vice president went to Edwards.)

In nearly all states, the candidate who wins a majority of the popular vote gets all that state's electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska are the only states in which the vote can sometimes be divided among candidates. In 2004, Colorado voters defeated a measure that would have divided their state's votes among candidates based on their share of the popular vote.

The winner-takes-all rule means that a candidate who narrowly loses the popular vote can still win in the Electoral College. Four presidents have been elected this way: John Quincy Adams (1828), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), and George W. Bush (2000).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a little review for all of you brilliant people.
As I understand it, some of the elite and more educated had a fear of a totally open system.
There were several biases put into these early laws that have been thrown out and/or updated.
I believe that the electoral college is no longer needed due to the change in our world of information and the general belief that the common man/woman is informed enough to make the decision.
One person ~ one vote.
Isn't that the way it is advertised?

[Matt]

This is a long read on the pros and cons and some of their reasoning behind them. Interesting.


United States Electoral College - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [New Window]
The term "Electoral College" is not used in the United States Constitution, and it was not until the early 1800s that it came into general usage as the ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

[Trueblue]

It isn't needed, and if it gave the Dems an advantage, Limpbaugh would rail against it every day.

[Ringo]

The corporations and the electoral college determine who becomes President, the averge person has nothing to do with it anymore :sad


So in 92 it was Wal Mart-Tyson & the College, while in 76it was Skippy-Jiff & the College?? Hmmm verrrrry inderesting????????????:sheep:hippy

[AYFR]

Please stay on topic here

[sparks]

Please stay on topic here


Picky, picky, picky! :Q

:rofl:

[AYFR]

Picky, picky, picky! :Q

:rofl:

Onky because this is a sticky, sticky, sticky :rev

:rooster

[Kurtz]

The winner-takes-all rule means that a candidate who narrowly loses the popular vote can still win in the Electoral College. Four presidents have been elected this way: John Quincy Adams (1828), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), and George W. Bush (2000).

And then the Supreme Court gave it to him last time,
so he never was elected by one person ~ one vote.

Great lesson, Matt!! :thumbsup

[Wabash]

By Kevin McCullough
Sunday, November 18, 2007

As I sat in bed in the wee hours of Saturday morning, the Lovely Bride long having drifted off to sleep by my side and only the bloodshot inducing glow of my laptop staring back at me in the darkness - my stomach sank. On the screen in front of me was the latest reminder of what most of the nation had put behind us some seven years ago. I say latest because the signs have been many, and this week came fast and furious.

I remember the day George W. Bush was sworn in as President in his first term, I wondered allowed how he could stand to share the same car to and from the swearing in ceremony with the outgoing first "couple." I suppose that when the world came crashing down around us on September 11 one of the real benefits such tragedy left us with was that there was no need to be reminded any longer of the unseemly deceit, acts of marital infidelity, the brutal use of absolute power to bully the press, and worst of all having our leaders point their fingers at us and boldly tell us untrue things - merely to save their own hide.

If Hillary Clinton becomes president - get ready for everything we hated about our government to come springing back to life.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer's less than robustly honest form of debate engineering reminded us of the old idea that when it came to being bought and sold in favor of the Clinton's - CNN's brand was head and shoulders above the crowd.

The now thrice confessed to manipulation of questions by the Clinton camp as it related to campaign rallies, or even supposedly non-partisan debates took us back to the reports of the same type when the "charming Clinton" was the candidate.

Sure by the time Sandy Berger committed a felony offense of stealing national documents by stuffing them in his boxers, so many years had gone by that a number of younger adults were saying, "hey I sorta remember him." But the affable fumbling of "gosh I just don't know what I did with those things" answer seemed to satisfy as an explanation. Yet a more loyal task-taker for the steely-eyed Clintons was never found.

The reunification this week of Sydney Blumenthal to the Clinton camp was another sickening moment. In many ways Blumenthal's performance before the Ken Starr investigators made Bill Clinton look truly amateurish. The ease with which Blumenthal was able to sell falsehoods, ever changing recollections of things as they had happened, and his willingness to just bald-face lie sent shivers down the spines of those who watched it. Yet since less than one-third of the American people even understood what the true nature of the investigations were all about, America yawned and went on its way.

Even fellow liberals are decrying the underhanded, back-stage, off-the-record informal strategizing that James Carville is now bringing back to the primary election cycle.

So what was it on the screen at 3am that made me feel so sick?

A blurb if you will, just a tidbit really, in the newest Robert Novak column that simply detailed the discovery of a "file" that Hillary is keeping on Barack Obama. The "scandalous information" of which she is promising not to use (for now) for the sake of a unified party heading into the general election. Of course if Obama wins in Iowa and New Hampshire look for that same "scandalous information" to make it into the hands of CNN staffers, who just couldn't quite tell you how they came to be in possession of it.

The idea of secret files reminded us that when Hillary was only First Lady that she had already proven herself willing to play by rules that only she had to abide by. Thus she has never been held accountable or even been made to answer questions related to miraculously profitable land deals in Arkansas. Mysterious suicides of "friends" like Vince Foster whose suicide weapon as found in the hand opposite of the one he would've used evidently didn't seem to be important enough for her to need to respond to - nor did any of the other 50 plus "friends of Bill and Hillary." She was neck deep in the mail room, travel office, and security personnel scandals that hit the Clinton White House. These were scandals where long time staffers lost jobs and lives were ruined. Hillary even led the way in making it harder for the Secret Service to immediately be able to tell who had what level security clearance in the White House because the desire to not hurt feelings of people who shouldn't be in rooms they didn't have clearance to be in.

But none of the scandals were bolder and publicly vexing than the fact that whole cases of FBI files of Clinton opponents or antagonists were missing and mysteriously popped up in Hillary's possession.

The fact that many of the names found in such files were also under special audit from the IRS - many for several years in a row - under the Clinton regime troubled the few Americans who followed the news closely enough to understand it.

The willingness that such executive power would be focused to abuse their ideological enemies is revolting and repulsive.

In the years since Hillary has repackaged herself as the "moderate" Senator from New York thus further distancing herself from the trouble of the Arkansas days. But make no mistake - everything ugly associated with the word Clinton is back.

Rigged appearances, intimidation of the press, and the discovery that research hacks are even now sitting in some campaign office basement putting together strategy hits for the assassination of their current opponents - its all back.

On a side note we should be thankful on some level, because of the Clinton's we now have talk radio, The Drudge Report, Fox News Channel, and forums like TownHall.com.

We should not be surprised, but we must walk through this election cycle with our eyes open. And if we are not ready for the Hillary Police State (asbestos pantsuits required) then democratic primary voters best speak up and Iowa would be a great place to start.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/K...clinton_rising

[Trueblue]

I've printed this article off, then I'll wind it around an empty toilet paper roll in the bathroom so this article can be used to its fullest potential.

The willingness that such executive power would be focused to abuse their ideological enemies is revolting and repulsive.

The above is particularly idiotic, considering what the Bushies did do Valerie Plame.

I'm so glad that few people follow the TownHall mentality. Thank God most people aren't that stupid.

[issac the dragon]

You'd think that they would wise up after watching the mess the Bushies have made of this country. Of course, they blame everything on Bill Clinton. So they never have to face reality.

[Matt]

It's hard to wise up when you are on a steady diet of faux news from Fox, Robertson, and the entertainment radio talkers who are often from the Nixon jailhouse gang.
What would the Rs be saying if those people were Democrats!?! :roll

Biden was on one of the morning shows.
He's the man with a plan!

[issac the dragon]

If the Iraqi war stays out of the blood gushing daily kill headlines much longer, what is Obama going to use as a reason to nominate him?

He seems, IMO, to be saying he is the only Dem. to vote against the war, therefore he should be elected. Never mind that there was no vote to go to war, he does keep stressing this.

If Iraq stays quiet for a while, will he have any reason that we should vote for him? Is there one?

[Matt]

Reasons to vote for Obama:

He has no previous record in the Senate.
He is neither a Clinton nor a Bush.
He is a likeable person ~ Oops! That was one of the reasons that folks voted for W. :yep

I really, really hope the press doesn't goad the candidates into destroying each other.

[nixon]

I'm torn between Edwards and Richardson, myself. I have no idea who my DH will vote for. Except it won't be a Republican. :wink

Won't be a Republican? Don't you all beleive we are better off now than seven years ago? I ask you all "Was it so bad with Bill in the White House?" Your freind and Patriot against the patriot act, Nixon.

[issac the dragon]

Ho hum. What was it like then? We had a Constitution. Jesus was not our offical god. We weren't piling up bodies of Iraqis. We weren't looking for an excuse to go to war against Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and Venezuela. We had Bill Clinton's picadillos to amuse us. I'd take it back in a nano second.

[issac the dragon]

Did I sound like I was critizing nixon. I didn't mean to. I am not the great communicator. Duh. Sorry.

[Trueblue]

I thought Bill in the WH was pretty great.

[Matt]

Hill & Bill in the White House can take us back to 'the good old days' when the lying was about personal problems that just mattered in a marriage ~ instead of King George, the decider, who decides that we can give democracy to the rest of the world by taking it away from Americans.

[Trueblue]

I am trying to decide between Richardson, Biden, and Edwards.

[nixon]

Did I sound like I was critizing nixon. I didn't mean to. I am not the great communicator. Duh. Sorry.

Who could be a critic of Nixon? Here's a guy who made the Republican party shine!

[nixon]

Hill & Bill in the White House can take us back to 'the good old days' when the lying was about personal problems that just mattered in a marriage ~ instead of King George, the decider, who decides that we can give democracy to the rest of the world by taking it away from Americans.

Fool me once... you can't get fooled again. On occasion your memory must be refreshed.

[April15]

Who could be a critic of Nixon? Here's a guy who made the Republican party shine!At least Nixon was competent. Not like these bunch of potential winos.

[Matt]

A competent proven crook is not exactly what I am looking for in a president.
I agree with John Dean. This administration has done much worse than Nixon's.

In spite of his inability to grab the public I still see Biden as the most competent person running for president.
I wish we looked for that more than the glitz.

The numbers getting closer in the polls is to be expected.
Do you wonder if the population of Iowa and New Hampshire is that much in agreement with the rest of the country in what they are looking for in a president?

It has always concerned me that these little states have caucauses where the decisions are not made by one person, one vote seem to be choosing our candidates for president.
They do not have primaries like we have here.

[Matt]

Here is an idea of how the causus works:
[Quote]
Within counties, delegates are NOT awarded by a winner-take-all system. They are allocated among the precincts (there are just under 2,000 precincts statewide), based again on how many votes were cast in that precinct for Democrats at the top of the ticket in recent general elections.

By way of example, my precinct in the Des Moines suburbs has six delegates to assign in the caucus. That number will not change, whether 50 people or 500 people show up on caucus night. A neighboring precinct that is more Democratic has eight delegates to assign. Next January, even if we have 300 people in our precinct caucus and the neighboring one has 100 people in the room, we will still get to assign six delegates, and they will get to assign eight.[Quote]

[Matt]

Here is an example of how the Iowa Democratic causus works:
[Quote]
Within counties, delegates are NOT awarded by a winner-take-all system. They are allocated among the precincts (there are just under 2,000 precincts statewide), based again on how many votes were cast in that precinct for Democrats at the top of the ticket in recent general elections.

By way of example, my precinct in the Des Moines suburbs has six delegates to assign in the caucus. That number will not change, whether 50 people or 500 people show up on caucus night. A neighboring precinct that is more Democratic has eight delegates to assign. Next January, even if we have 300 people in our precinct caucus and the neighboring one has 100 people in the room, we will still get to assign six delegates, and they will get to assign eight.[Quote]

[Matt]

Sorry I'm going to have to figure why I keep getting bumped and can't tell if I've posted or not.
I'm just an incompetent operator here.
You can see why leaders need to be competent. :embarrassed

[Kurtz]

Great Song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6_tQ-1ZFfo)

:tunes

Great message! :thumbsup

[jim]

I will post a Rep one also so lets just keep this focused.

What have the top candidates running for the Democrat nomination done to qualify them for the Office of President?

Business they have owned, cities or states they have run?
What qualifies them.


Before this starts the reply what made Bush qualified is not the topic here.

One of the greatest mistakes this country ever has made is the thought that owning a business qualifies a person for everything. Government is far too complex for business - Those who truly can run a giant cooperation - who are few and far between might be able to grasp it.Eg..At sixteen years, I knew the scrap metal business well...Did that qualify me for political office?? I hardly think so.:rooster Government requires professional level people ipso facto, which we can't maintain for politics. Agrarian/mercantile: politics can no longer manage this country and it had better be learned!!:mw

[issac the dragon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/opinion/12brooks.html?ref=opinion
There’s a big difference between the Republican and Democratic campaigns: The Republicans have split on policy grounds; the Democrats haven’t. There’s been a Republican divide between center and right, yet no Democratic divide between center and left.

But when you think about it, the Democratic policy unity is a mirage. If the Democrats actually win the White House, the tensions would resurface with a vengeance.

The first big rift would involve Iraq. Both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have seductively hinted that they would withdraw almost all U.S. troops within 12 to 16 months. But if either of them actually did that, he or she would instantly make Iraq the consuming partisan fight of their presidency.

There would be private but powerful opposition from Arab leaders, who would fear a return to 2006 chaos. There would be irate opposition from important sections of the military, who would feel that the U.S. was squandering the gains of the previous year. A Democratic president with few military credentials would confront outraged and highly photogenic colonels screaming betrayal.

There would be important criticism from nonpartisan military experts. In his latest report, the much-cited Anthony Cordesman describes an improving Iraqi security situation that still requires “strategic patience” and another five years to become self-sustaining.

There would be furious opposition from Republicans and many independents. They would argue that you can’t evacuate troops just as Iraqis are about to hold national elections and tensions are at their highest. They would point out that it’s insanity to end local reconstruction and Iraqi training efforts just when they are producing results. They would accuse the new administration of reverse-Rumsfeldism, of ignoring postsurge realities and of imposing an ideological solution on a complex situation.

All dreams of changing the tone in Washington would be gone. All of Obama’s unity hopes would evaporate. And if the situation did deteriorate after a quick withdrawal, as the National Intelligence Estimate warns, the bloodshed would be on the new president’s head.

Therefore, when a new Democratic administration considered all these possibilities, its members would part ways. A certain number of centrists would conclude that rapid withdrawal is a mistake. They would say that the situation had changed and would call for a strategic review. They’d recommend a long, slow conditions-based withdrawal — constant, small troop reductions, and a lot of regional diplomacy, while maintaining tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for the remainder of the term.

The left wing of the party would go into immediate uproar. They’d scream: This was a central issue of the campaign! All the troops must get out now!

The president would have to make a terrible decision.

Which brings us to second looming Democratic divide: domestic spending. Both campaigns now promise fiscal discipline, as well as ambitious new programs. These kinds of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too vows were merely laughable last year when the federal deficit was running at a manageable $163 billion a year. But the economic slowdown, the hangover from the Bush years and the growing bite of entitlements mean that the federal deficit will almost certainly top $400 billion by 2009. The accumulated national debt will be in shouting distance of the $10 trillion mark. With that much red ink, the primary-season spending plans are simply ridiculous.

It’d be 1993 all over again. The new Democratic president would be faced with Bill Clinton’s Robert Rubin vs. Robert Reich choice: either scale back priorities for the sake of fiscal discipline or blow through all known deficit records for the sake of bigger programs. Choose the former, and the new president would further outrage the left. Choose the latter and lose the financial establishment and the political center.

This is the debate that Democrats have been quietly rearguing during the entire Bush presidency. The left wing of the party is absolutely committed to winning it this time. It will likely demand the clean energy subsidies and the education spending, the expensive health care coverage and subsides to address middle-class anxiety. But no Democratic president can afford to offend independent voters with runaway spending. No president can easily ignore the think tank establishment, which is rightfully exercised about the nation’s long-term fiscal health.

It would be another brutal choice.

As William J. Stuntz of Harvard Law School wrote in The Weekly Standard, the Democrats have conducted their race amid unconstrained “Yes We Can!” unreality. Because the Democratic candidates appear to agree on so much, they’ve never tested each other’s policy proposals or exposed each other’s assumptions. But governing means choosing, and reality will be unkind. The artificial unity between the Democratic center and the Democratic left would be smashed by the harsh choices of 2009. My guess? The centrists would win.

The Democrats have already endured 30 years of vilification as the party of appeasement. If they nominate Obama, he will have to keep his promise to end the Iraq war immediately. He has no wiggle room. And the Democrats will again be the party of appeasement. It took years to recover. Do you want to go there again. Clinton at least could slowly withdraw. Obama can't.

[jim]

Sems to me that we still are trying to go purely black and white on every issue - no gray. Enerything will have to be carefully and well evaluated from more than one angle!! Do we have anyone to really accomplish that?? IMO, if they are here or there, I haven't seen them. If we the people spek loudly enough, will our voices be heard??? Seems to me they hanen't been as of now.:brr

[issac the dragon]

All of my life I have wondered who the jerks were who took a good product off the market. One that worked well, lasted a long time and was inexpensive, and replaced it with one that was none of the above. Now I know. The DNC.

Remember elections? People got to vote for the canidate of their choice. Everyone who wanted to got to vote. Well, the DNC had a better idea. They have managed to create a system that is so complicated only a baboon could think it made sense. And back themselves into a corner from which no matter how they get out of, is going to make a significant number of people mad as hell.

This I will add to my reasons for not being a Democrat. Along side the fact that they have no balls. I am so angry, I cannot even read or listen to the news. And it is not going to get better. So thanks for nothing DNC.

[Matt]

This is somewhat like the electoral college that doesn't have to listen to the people either.
It all came about because of everyone wanting to have their election before Iowa.
The RNC didn't penalize Iowa for having their election early because their caucus votes aren't binding. They penalized some of the other states by depriving them of half their delegates.
Seems we are learning that one person, one vote isn't necessarily true regardless of party.
Why don't we, the people, do something about that?